Why Crossdressing is Taboo in Western Society - Thoughts

[Eryn]

It is sad to observe, but the current increased acceptance of homosexuality and other alternative life modes might be just a swing of a pendulum. Homosexuality flourished in pre-Nazi Germany, but was repressed by the Nazi and post-war governments. Conditions are better now, but all it will take is a crisis for which the LGBT community is a convenient scapegoat to push the community down again.

I don't see the US as being much different. People respond to emotion more than logic and if a sufficiently nasty scandal comes along it could be devastating.

[Jamie001]

I did a lot of research into this for my last essay at uni and you're pretty much correct. Throughout history society has always seen women as the inferior of the two genders, creation myths always start with the man being created first, countless religious texts are full of 'men own women' mentality and there are countless modern examples. Men are seen as powerful, so a woman with power needs to maintain that by not appearing feminine at all, thus creating fear and respect. Men acting feminine by doing things like having sex with another man or (shock horror) actually presenting as or even becoming a woman just creates an image of inferiority and 'wrongness' from those that don't understand.

Hmmm, if this is true then when we as a society say that women are equal to men, it is only lip service at best! A good measuring stick to know when true equality between men and women has been achieved is when a man can wear women's clothing in any situation without facing ridicule. Does this make sense?

[Angela Campbell]

Most of us learned in grade school that anything "different" is singled out, made fun of and critisized. The more different the worse the treatment. It is severe and immediate in our younger years but still is around in our older years. If you are a nail sticking up then look for the hammer!

[Deedee Skyblue]

I don't know if this has been discussed specifically, or more generally as a fear of homosexuality... I think many men are afraid that they might pick up a crossdresser, not realize it, and do something 'horrible' with her before they find out, which will 'turn them gay', which, of course, will ruin their lives forever. Of course I am generalizing a lot, and adding a little snide humor, but I think there is a lot of this kind of fear. Not only that, but if a guy picks up a crossdresser and doesn't realize it, all his friends will make fun of him when they find out, for the rest of their lives, and he will never live it down. Meanwhile, while they are tearing down the guy's manhood, the friends, who were also fooled, are all thinking 'Whew - I'm glad nobody found out how hot I think she is! That could have been ME tongue dancing with another GUY! EWWWWW, Icky!'

Deedee

[busker]

I think we need to remember that a lot of this thread is rather unscientific speculation. We're trying to figure out how people think--and remember, these are cispeople who don't view this question the way we do. If we really want to know what they think, the best thing to do would be to ask them. But I'm not sure how good the answers we'd get from them would be. They may not really know. People don't always know why they think what they think.

I base my view on the fact that you will hear trans-haters call us "sick" and "perverts". If I remember correctly, a 1913 health act in the US labelled us "moral deviants". But I don't think I've ever heard a trans-hater say, "You're lowering yourself by trying to be a woman." But I don't claim that I have any scientifically-gathered data on this question. I wonder if anybody does.

We could come up with all kinds of theories. E.g., a man is supposed to be strong. When he dresses as a woman, he's not projecting an image of manly strength. I myself would like some real data before I come to any firm conclusion.

Annabelle

What you don't know determines what you think you know, in ways that aren't completely known to you" Howard Rheingold.

[Annette Anderson]

In the USA i am not a person,I am a consumer.and i am a cheapskate crossdresser,so that rules out the retail sector falling in love with me.As for religion that goes without saying,as for government they probably figure that most of us will not give birth to little taxpayers.Ok,so now who actually likes us?,Yeah,i'm scratching my head too.

[Jenniferathome]

Hmmm, if this is true then when we as a society say that women are equal to men, it is only lip service at best! A good measuring stick to know when true equality between men and women has been achieved is when a man can wear women's clothing in any situation without facing ridicule. Does this make sense?

no. Women are more than clothes. Equating women an men in dresses is not a sound argument.

[Foxglove]

Hmmm, if this is true then when we as a society say that women are equal to men, it is only lip service at best! A good measuring stick to know when true equality between men and women has been achieved is when a man can wear women's clothing in any situation without facing ridicule. Does this make sense?

No, it makes no sense whatsoever. What we're trying to do here is get inside the minds of cispeople. We should be very careful about that. We're not cispeople ourselves, and we should be very hesitant to assume we can know what they're thinking. This is precisely the problem that we transpeople have. Many, many cispeople apply their way of thinking to us and they come to the conclusion that we're confused, sick, etc.

You're talking about two totally different things here. One is equality between men and women. Let there be total equality in every way--opportunities, rights, etc. Moreover, assume the most important thing of all: in people's minds, in their attitudes, they see no difference whatsoever in the value of a man and a woman respectively.

It still won't change the fact that TGism is something totally outside the experience of cispeople. It will still baffle them. To many of them, it will still appear ridiculous. A man dressing as a woman wouldn't be seen as lowering himself--but he would still mystify people who have no way of understanding why he should want to be or look like a woman.

This is the central fact of TGism: it's outside the experience of cispeople. They're not equipped to feel it, to understand it. Their primary reaction to it is a visceral one, not an intellectual one. We're trying to supply an intellectual reason for their dislike of us, when any intellectual reason is at best secondary and more probably irrelevant.

I myself look to cispeople's visceral reaction. I think Sarah Marie's formulation, they see it as "a corruption of the natural order" gets to the heart of the matter. Most people aren't thinkers. They react emotionally. Whenever you see an article on the net about TGism, look at the comments below the article. Among the trans-haters you won't find any thought in their replies. You'll see a lot emotion.

This thread is convincing me that this argument, "MTF's are denigrated because they're seen as lowering themselves to the status of women," is nonsense. It's intellectualizing a question that is fundamentally emotional. Basically, it hasn't got anything to do with anything. We need to stop trying to read people's minds and listen to what they actually say. And they're not saying what we think they're thinking.

[I'm going to add some remarks to this post, which is already very long, because I think this is an important issue. What approach are we transpeople to adopt when addressing the cisgender community?

I think it's very bad strategy to assume that we know what they're thinking and frame our arguments accordingly. Tell your average trans-hater, "You dislike men who dress as women because you think they're lowering themselves to the status of women. You see women as beneath you. You're fundamentally sexist."

You won't get anywhere with that sort of argument. For one thing, a trans-hater isn't necessarily sexist--the proof being that many trans-haters are women. There's no point in telling people that they think something they don't think. Your arguments won't convince them, because you won't be addressing the real point.

"A man is supposed to be a man": this is the heart of your average trans-hater's argument. He doesn't intellectualize the question. That's as far as he goes, and that's what needs to be addressed.

My approach would be, "Says who? Why? Most men are manly, yes, because that's the way they're made. But there is a small number of exceptions, and science is beginning to find reasons for that now. Some 'men' are 'womanly' to one extent or another because that's the way they're made. This is something that occurs naturally from time to time.

"But think: suppose this transperson you despise so much happens to be as honest a person as you've ever seen--as decent, upright, kind, generous and compassionate as anyone you've ever known. Will you condemn him simply because he doesn't fit the usual definition of a 'man', a definition he repudiates for himself because it's totally inappropriate to him? He is what he is, and if he's to be happy in life, he needs to live according to his nature--even if that nature is odd and baffling to most people. Will you condemn to a lifetime of unhappiness a decent person who doesn't do any harm at all to you or anyone else in the world?"

I think this sort of argument goes to the heart of trans-haters dislike of us. You won't win over any of the hard-core trans-haters by using it. But there is a good chance you will win over lots of sympathetic cispeople. This is because their reaction is basically the same as the trans-haters'. It's just that they're nicer people and so can be swayed by plausible arguments that make sense to them. I know that this is true because I've done it.

We need to address what people think and feel, not what we think they think and feel. It's no good for us to speculate about what their thoughts and feelings might be. We need to listen to them, and address what they say.]

Best wishes, Annabelle

[Launa]

As for why it is taboo. I think it is basically that the male role is being challenged. Society doesn't like that.

This explains it all for me....

[Launa]

It is sad to observe, but the current increased acceptance of homosexuality and other alternative life modes might be just a swing of a pendulum. Homosexuality flourished in pre-Nazi Germany, but was repressed by the Nazi and post-war governments. Conditions are better now, but all it will take is a crisis for which the LGBT community is a convenient scapegoat to push the community down again.

I don't see the US as being much different. People respond to emotion more than logic and if a sufficiently nasty scandal comes along it could be devastating.

It could be like the movie Red Dawn for all of us crossdressers.


I think you're right though in saying when things go real bad in a society then minorities can get the axe.

[Jilmac]

I believe that throughout western culture, females have been treated as lesser individuals, hence the sayings, "the weaker sex", "the fairer sex", etc. For many in our society, we have been taught that a show of emotion was a sign of weakness. That along with many other feminine traits have caused suppression of male vulnerability.

The perceived notion that crossdressers are gay (or may have gay tendencies), is born of that cultural belief. Religious beliefs and mores have also played a significant role in these negative notions.

[Gillian Gigs]

Not wanting to generalise any more than necessary, I would find it very difficult to say what I wish to say. I find people on the whole to be fearful by nature. The strength behind the fear factor determines the responce which we see in many ways within our society. An obvious example to me is the fear of provision, by this I mean that an individual lives with a conscious, or more often than not unconscious fear that there is not going to be enough of something for them, as in food. Thence they show a prejudice toward new comers who are taking away from them what they may need in a precieved thought that there are shortages of that something, as in food. Then there is the fear of the unknown, people tend to fear what they do not understand. If I don't totally understand why I dress, then why would anyone else understand. A lack of information only adds to the fear, then we add Holywood stereotyping, and guess what, people want to throw stones to rid themselves of this fearful thing! North America was built on these fears and perjudices, and it was time that broke most of them down.

Is this a societal or religious issue, or both. The truth shall set you free, what makes anyone think that the religious folks don't need to be set free of their fears and prejudices also. What was once a "mixed" marriage in the 60's is now laughable compared to what we see now! Every ethnic parent I have ever met wants their child to marry within their ethnic grouping, as in keeping it safe from the unknown.

Homophobia is another fear factor that happens and CD'ers are lumped into this group. Show me a man who has not had a homosexual fantasy, or dream in his life, and I will show you someone who tells lies. The question is what does a person do with these fantasys/dreams? One may act on them, while the other, through fear, is driven to lash out at gays, or possibily CD'ers. After all everyone knows that CD'ers dress up so they can have sex with poor unexpecting ignorant men, heavy sarcasm intended!

We live in a society that has well defines structure to it, whether we see it or not. When Pres. Obama was first elected, I heard people say that he got elected because a black man was still better than a woman. Well he beat a rich white man the second time, now they are saying it was because of his religion. I don't know why, but I do know that the structure of society changes with time, and it takes time. Think about how long Pres. Obama would have lived in the 1920's once he declared his desires for the office of the presidency. We now have openly gay/lesbian leaders in political offices today, who knows what time will bring for other minorities?

[sometimes_miss]

Where it all comes from.

Simply, a woman is considered to be submissive to males. At least sexually, this is 99% of the time true, basically the act involves the woman being 'taken' by the male as he impregnates her. A male who openly embraces the behavior/appearance of females is considered suspect of being similar to them.
Now, also for 99.9% of human existance, submissive males were a danger to their tribe/society. Every male was depended upon to defend his group in battle. A gay or submissive male was seen as a huge risk for the society, as he was considered more likely to not only not hold up his responsibilities in the line of battle, but perhaps at other times when he may be needed to protect others, and therefore was a danger to the lives of his fellow male AND female citizens of that society. Those tribes that did not consider the feminine male a danger would die off as the less aggressive males were not able to defend their societies.
Which made the spread of homophobia almost a genetically driven thing over many generations.
Now you might say to yourself, 'Why, I'd never leave the side of my fellow soldier! I'd rather die!'. But they don't know that. At one point or another, we all know that someone in love will risk everything for the object of their affection. A potentially homosexual male, therefore, is seen as an unacceptable risk because he might leave his place in the line of battle to go defend another man that he loves, opening the flank to attack.
Societies that risk this will be more likely to lose battles than those that do not, and over thousands of years, that behavior will be gradually be erased from the population. Even though we like to think we are now 'civilized', so that those reasons don't matter anymore, well for about 90% of the planet, that's not true. Women (and other men) still depend on the other males to hold up their responsibility for protection of others like them; if I see a woman with her children being accosted on the street by a male, I'm still expected to go to her defense. So in a sense, nothing has changed. Gay males, or anyone suspected of being such, are still seen as a risk to the safety of the society. You can argue about it all you want, but that's where the feelings originate from.
And seeing of how being feminine kills off sexual attraction to us in nearly all women, I suspect nothing is going to change much in the near future, at least not soon enough to make a substantial difference in our love lives. Sure, you'll still get a few women interested in us (for whatever reasons); but the masses? Nope. Not gonna happen. .

[SarahMarie42]

Quick question, though, Lexi -- are you referring to tribes in the paleolithic era or tribes in the neolithic era? Tribes in the paleolithic era needed to do nothing but occasionally defend their encampments from meandering wild animals and occasionally participate in skirmishes when small disputes occurred -- usually when both tribes had tracked the same animal into the woods, or had a small dispute over hunting and gathering tracts. War was not a major element of life in paleolithic societies, as there was really no room for conquest -- agriculture had not yet been developed and the pastoral, established society had not come into existence either. In fact, in almost all hunter/gatherer societies, women enjoyed a status equal to that of the male, and a male who was seen to have some feminine characteristics was sometimes revered as a shaman or great warrior, as he was seen to have brought together conflicting masculine and feminine forces in a single vessel - showing great internal power. This was the case in those societies which revered the "berdache" (though this term is offensive and was applied by French missionaries -- it translates equivalently to "captive" or "male prostitute") or, in their preferred, translated terminology: "the two-spirit". These "two-spirits" were actually encouraged to don a special garb WHILE in battle, to show the superior power of whichever tribe they belonged to -- as they were thought by all tribes in the region to, again, possess immense spiritual powers. One can assume that the stigma associated with transgender behavior did not simply arise out of the primitive, paleolithic, hunter-gatherer state of affairs -- it is probably tied to a metaphysical belief regarding that which is natural; a belief which presumably arose out of certain economic and ecological circumstances, and was probably developed, in most cases, after agrarian society had been achieved.

[sometimes_miss]

Quick question, though, Lexi -- are you referring to tribes in the paleolithic era or tribes in the neolithic era? Tribes in the paleolithic era needed to do nothing but occasionally defend their encampments from meandering wild animals and occasionally participate in skirmishes when small disputes occurred -- usually when both tribes had tracked the same animal into the woods, or had a small dispute over hunting and gathering tracts.

O.K, who do you think people would want by their side hunting the wild boar or during any physical 'skirmish (and 'occasionally', well it only takes one 'occasion' to kill you off)? How about hunting down a lion pride, wolf pack, or even a single tiger or bear which had previously attacked someone in their community (for whatever reason, the animal might simply be going through the same territory looking for food and thought the humans were a danger to itself)? The big dominant aggressive guy, or the quiet submissive guy who prefers to hang out with the women and kids, the guy who doesn't like fighting and usually submits to other people's wishes rather than fight for what he wants? Keeping in mind all you have for weapons for much of this history does not automatically involve long sharp objects or firearms, you each may only have your own strength and perhaps a loose stick to fight with.

In fact, in almost all hunter/gatherer societies, women enjoyed a status equal to that of the male

I wasn't talking about worth or status, nor do I see it mentioned anywhere in my posts on this thread (or any other; in fact, with the old 'women and children first' routine, when one male could potentially impregnate all the women in the community, you could make a valid point that females were generally more 'valuable' than males to the survival of said tribe up to the point where they could not defend themselves from the hostile actions of larger groups of males). So, I'm not sure where you got that.

and a male who was seen to have some feminine characteristics was SOMETIMES revered as a shaman or great warrior, as he was seen to have brought together conflicting masculine and feminine forces in a single vessel - showing great internal power. This was the case in those societies which revered the "berdache" (though this term is offensive and was applied by French missionaries

I think french missionaries are a relatively new occurance in the total time that humans have been on the planet. And the key word in the above is SOMETIMES. Because I guess you can even say that SOMETIMES women are turned on by crossdressers. But that's not usually the case, either.

as they were thought by all tribes in the region to, again, possess immense spiritual powers.

Thought to. But did not. Japanese military thought their soldiers were superior warriors in battle in WW2, and that superiority was all that was needed to overcome enemy troops. They were wrong.

One can assume that the stigma associated with transgender behavior did not simply arise out of the primitive, paleolithic, hunter-gatherer state of affairs -- it is probably tied to a metaphysical belief regarding that which is natural; a belief which presumably arose out of certain economic and ecological circumstances, and was probably developed, in most cases, after agrarian society had been achieved.

It's been a very, very long time since I took any courses studying the early societal behaviors of humans. My opinions here are based on what I see as common human behaviors, which can either contribute to the survival of any given group of people, or not. For while some like to think that the meek will inherit the earth, the more aggressive will usually kill them off so that they will have more opportunity to have sex with the females. Over time, those more aggressive males will become more attractive to those women because those women will be more likely to be protected by those males, increasing their numbers as well. But I'm rambling on to someone who probably has more knowledge in anthropology and sociology than I do.

[SarahMarie42]

Status is important, though, and women weren't necessarily seen as physically "weak", they were simply designated as foragers because hunting required straying further from the home, and, in order to nurse, one would have to bring one's child along with them for that great distance. In the ethnography Nisa: The Life and Words of a Kung! Woman, there is a short anecdote involving a female hunter, and, while it was rare for the Kung! Bushmen to designate female hunters, they were not averse to a woman's joining them in the hunt (and, mind you, the hunt was recognized as requiring great skill and strength). If there were a stigma against women due to lack of physical strength, it would have vanished with the invention of the spear, and would not have persisted in modern society -- the lifting of taboos would have occurred much earlier. The Kung! Bushmen live in the Kalihari Desert of Africa, mind you, but their practices are quintessentially hunter/gatherer and can be compared with those of many native tribes. So, if a woman was not barred from the hunt due to her strength, or her ability to fight, and was simply more domestic in her role because she was the only one capable of nursing her children -- why would there exist a stigma against a feminine male who could not nurse, had the musculature of a ordinary male, and was still fully available for hunting? There wouldn't, presumably, so status (since it rests upon perception of ability in earlier societies) is extremely important to this discussion, and, when hunting involves physical strength and skill with weapons similar to that of skirmishing, roles were primarily assigned for pragmatic purposes, and a man's feminine inclinations would not imply anything as to his physical strength or his fulfillment of more practical responsibilities -- assuming that a stigma would be derived from that purpose is sketchy at best. Most see gender inequality and gender-role stigma as arriving with the agrarian society. However, I would assume that "proper roles" developed from religious and metaphysical beliefs, as there are no economic reasons for preference. A male individual who wore a nice, pretty dress, would still have the slightly superior upper-body strength necessary for the operation of the plow. Even homosexual behavior, in agricultural societies where population growth was of immense importance, would not preclude the bearing of children for practical purposes -- closeted homosexuals, to this day, occasionally end up bearing children. I'm assuming the cause lies on a purely cultural/religious/ethical/metaphysical basis.

[busker]

Where it all comes from.

Simply, a woman is considered to be submissive to males. At least sexually, this is 99% of the time true, basically the act involves the woman being 'taken' by the male as he impregnates her. A male who openly embraces the behavior/appearance of females is considered suspect of being similar to them.
Now, also for 99.9% of human existance, submissive males were a danger to their tribe/society. Every male was depended upon to defend his group in battle. A gay or submissive male was seen as a huge risk for the society, as he was considered more likely to not only not hold up his responsibilities in the line of battle, but perhaps at other times when he may be needed to protect others, and therefore was a danger to the lives of his fellow male AND female citizens of that society. Those tribes that did not consider the feminine male a danger would die off as the less aggressive males were not able to defend their societies.
Which made the spread of homophobia almost a genetically driven thing over many generations.
Now you might say to yourself, 'Why, I'd never leave the side of my fellow soldier! I'd rather die!'. But they don't know that. At one point or another, we all know that someone in love will risk everything for the object of their affection. A potentially homosexual male, therefore, is seen as an unacceptable risk because he might leave his place in the line of battle to go defend another man that he loves, opening the flank to attack.
Societies that risk this will be more likely to lose battles than those that do not, and over thousands of years, that behavior will be gradually be erased from the population. Even though we like to think we are now 'civilized', so that those reasons don't matter anymore, well for about 90% of the planet, that's not true. Women (and other men) still depend on the other males to hold up their responsibility for protection of others like them; if I see a woman with her children being accosted on the street by a male, I'm still expected to go to her defense. So in a sense, nothing has changed. Gay males, or anyone suspected of being such, are still seen as a risk to the safety of the society. You can argue about it all you want, but that's where the feelings originate from.
And seeing of how being feminine kills off sexual attraction to us in nearly all women, I suspect nothing is going to change much in the near future, at least not soon enough to make a substantial difference in our love lives. Sure, you'll still get a few women interested in us (for whatever reasons); but the masses? Nope. Not gonna happen. .

That was not always the case. There is a monument to a Greek Legion all of whom had male lovers/partners and who were defeated only because of overwhelming enemy superiority. I believe that they weren't even allowed to be in the Legion UNLESS they brought their lovers.

"Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece was regarded as contributing to morale.[1] Although the primary example is the Sacred Band of Thebes, a unit said to have been formed of same-sex couples, the Spartan tradition of military heroism has also been explained in light of strong emotional bonds resulting from homosexual relationships.[2] Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds." wiki article Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece

[sometimes_miss]

That was not always the case.

Never said that it was. In fact, nearly every rule has exceptions. The thread was about thoughts as to why crossdressing is taboo in certain situations, in this case, western society. So, what's your theory?

[joanna4]

Yes much like how African Americans got their rights and acceptance over 60 years ago. In my lifetime, I expect to see equality for the LGBT community as well as people like us. In 100 years, its possible that things can change and that my offspring will live in a different world.

[missmars]

It is Taboo in Eastern Society